Allahabad High Court
Rajnish Tripathi vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 2 July, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:107361-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6882 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rajnish Tripathi
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Nandan Singh,Shyama Devi
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Hridaya Narayan Mishra
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Impugned in the present proceedings at the instance of the Rajnish Tripathi (in short writ petitioner) is the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') dated 10.11.2023 passed in Original Application No. 642 of 2023 (Rajnish Tripathi Vs. Union of India & Ors.) whereby the original application preferred by the writ petitioner seeking quashing of the oral disengagement order dated 24.05.2023 and consideration for regularization was dismissed.
2. The case projected by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal was that he was initially engaged on the post of Packer/Postman in Sub-Post Office Mughalsarai on daily basis (casual labour) in the year 2017 and thereafter performed the duty as Group D Postman since 2018. It is claimed that on 13.05.2023 the Sub-Postmaster GSG-I made a recommendation to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office for regularization of the services of the writ petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office also recommended his case for regularization and the matter travelled up to the Directorate for regularization and an entry pass was also issued in favour of the writ petitioner for regularization in the 5th Rozgar Mela. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that when he started pursuing his claim for regularization then the respondents became annoyed and they proceeded to issue an oral order on 24.05.2023 dis-engaging the services of the writ petitioner.
3. Being aggrieved against the same, the writ petitioner preferred Original Application No. 642 of 2023 before the Tribunal seeking following reliefs.-
"(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and set aside/quash the oral disengage order 24.05.2023.
(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to reinstate to the applicant in service and regularize with all consequential benefits."
4. The said original application came to be dismissed at the admission stage itself by virtue of the order dated 10.11.2023.
5. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
6. Sri Babu Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the judgment and the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained for a single moment particularly in view of the fact that in service jurisprudence resorting to oral termination is wholly unacceptable. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that the writ petitioner had been working in the respondent's establishment since 2017 on daily basis (casual labour) as Packer/Postman and he also performed the duty of Group D post since 2018, however, when the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization was not considered and he pressed his claim, oral termination order had been issued.
7. In a nutshell, the argument is that the writ petitioner's engagement could not have been dispensed with by virtue of an oral termination order and further post completion of 240 days his status gets elevated as a temporary employee and the writ petitioner became entitled for consideration for regularization. While driving force from the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Bachan Maurya Vs. District Magistrate, Ghazipur, 1999 (3) AWC 2681, it is being contended that oral termination order does not test the legal requirement for dispensation of the services. Further, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Union of India Vs. Basant Lal AIR Supreme Court 1993 so as to contend that after working for a sufficiently long period temporary status and claim for regularization stands crystallized.
8. Countering the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Hridaya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel who appears for the respondent-Union of India has submitted that the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference in the present proceedings. According to him, the nature of engagement of the writ petitioner was on daily wage basis that too without any appointment order in writing subject to exigency of work. Submission is that since there was no requirement of work so a decision was taken to discontinue the engagement of the writ petitioner. He further submits that in absence of pointing out of any provision seeking regularization it is not open for the writ petitioner to insist for issuance of a positive direction.
9. Additionally, it has been argued that the judgment so relied upon by the writ petitioner is clearly distinguishable, as so far as the judgment in the case of Ram Bachan Maurya (supra) is concerned, the same was a case wherein a written appointment order was issued, however, the services were discontinued by an oral termination order. As regards the judgment in the case of Basant Lal (supra), according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the same is distinguishable as grant of temporary status or regularization is always subject to existence of vacancies, suitability and other factors. It is accordingly, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
11. The facts are not in issue. The controversy in pith and substance is whether it was open for the respondents to have orally dis-engaged the writ petitioner or not. The writ petitioner relies upon the judgment in the case of Ram Bachan Maurya (supra) while contending that oral order of termination is not acceptable in law. To test the said submission, we have gone through the record carefully and found that there is no document available on record so as to suggest that the writ petitioner was engaged as a daily wager (casual employee) by a written order.
12. On a pointed query raised, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner could not place on record any document to show that the engagement of the writ petitioner as a casual or daily wager was by virtue of a written order. Once the engagement of the writ petitioner as a daily wager or on casual basis, was made orally then it cannot be said that dispensation of the services could only be made by written orders. The judgment in the case of Ram Bachan Maurya (supra) is distinguishable.
13. Notably, in the cases where the engagement is on daily wages and casual basis no positive mandamus is required to be issued for engagement particularly when there is no factual foundation or pleadings with regard to existence of the vacancy or a policy in that regard. Moreso, in absence of any rule, regulation or circular either placed before this Court or pleaded before the Tribunal casting an obligation upon the respondents to engage and to regularize, this Court is not in a position to come to the rescue of the writ petitioner. The Tribunal in its judgment which is impugned before us had considered the law on the subject and has recorded a categorical finding that the writ petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of re-engagement or regularization.
14. Viewing the case from all angles, we are of the firm opinion that the writ petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity committed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference in the present proceedings.
15. Accordingly the writ petition is being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
16. Resultantly, the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024
Rajesh
(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
